DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of December 2022
Present: Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 27.12.2018
CC/184/2018
Shibi.T.R,
W/o Muraleedharan,
Murli Nivas,
Thekkinkkara,
Velikkad, Velikkad, Mundur,
Palakkad - 678 592
(By Adv. V. Shanmughanandan) - Complainant
Vs
1. Hewlett Packward Global soft Pvt. Ltd.,
EC 2, Campus, H.P Avenue Survey,
No.39 (PMRY), Electronic City,
Phase II, Hosor Road,
Banglore – 560 100
(Ex-parte)
2. P.C. World, Grace Avenue,
Puthuppriyam (P.O)
Palakkad – 678 032
3. Smart IT Solutions
Grace Avenew, Opposit Petrol Pump,
Thannav, Puthupariyaram .P.O,
Palakkad - Opposite parties
(Opposite parties 2 & 3 by Adv. Ullas sudhakaran)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant purchased a Lap top Model HP 15 –BS 180 TX, with number SL CND 7463FL3 from the 2nd opposite party which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 08.03.2018. The cost of the laptop was Rs. 48,800/- and it had warranty for 1 year. She purchased this lap top for his son’s studies based on the assurance made by the 2nd opposite party’s staff regarding its different specifications and after sale service.
After few months of its use, the Lap top developed, ‘hinge complaint’. She approached the 2nd opposite party for getting it repaired and they asked to entrust the laptop to the 3rd opposite party, service centre. They returned it on 10.10.2018 ie after one month saying that the defects are cured and charged Rs. 2250/- even though the product was under warranty.
After repair, the laptop was functioning for few months and again the problem of ‘hinge complaint’ started. The screen of the laptop got complained and darks spots and lines started appearing on the screen. Because of these problems, the complainant was unable to use the laptop. She approached the 2nd opposite party for getting the laptop replaced. But they did not care to do anything.
She had used the laptop only for 6 months. The lap top has manufacturing defect. So she is entitled to get it replaced with a new one. Because of the Deficiency in service of the opposite parties, the complainant had suffered mental and financial difficulties. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 48,800/- being the cost of the laptop, Rs. 2250/- being the Service charge together with interest at 18% and to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakh rupees, and the cost of the litigation.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice to 1st opposite party returned stating ‘refused’. So 1st opposite party’s name called in open court and they were set ex-parte. Opposite parties 2 and 3 entered appearance and filed their version.
3. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, contention in their version is as follows
The 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the products manufactured by the 1st opposite party. 3rd opposite party is engaged in the business of servicing and repairing computers, laptops and similar products. 3rd opposite party is not the authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party and hence they cannot undertake warranty related services and repairs.
Opposite parties 2and 3 admit the fact that the complainant purchased a lap top, Model HP 15 –BS 180 TX manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party dealer for an amount of Rs. 48,800/- and it is having one year warranty.
Later on, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for getting her laptop repaired and on inspection, it was found that the Lap Top could not be opened as it was in jammed condition and it might be due to accidental drop. When questioned about this, the complainant admitted that the Lap Top had accidentally fell down and got damaged. The 2nd opposite party informed her that the damage caused due to accidental fall or abuse by the consumer is not covered under warranty clause. They further told her that they are only dealers and not undertaking services and repairs. The complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and they informed her that the extent of damage can be assessed only on opening the lap top and she had to bear the expenses for the spare parts and service charges. On opening, the display was found to be broken and it was informed to the complainant
The complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to replace the display free of cost and considering that she is the sister of 2nd opposite party’s staff, they informed that if the 3rd opposite party comes in possessions of any extra display which is suitable for the complainant’s lap top, they will replace it and the complainant had only to pay the service charges. She agreed the same and when they got a display, the 3rd opposite party replaced it and returned on 10.10.2018. Delay was only due to delay in getting a suitable display.
The other allegations in the complaint regarding the recurring of hinges problem and defects in display are denied by the 2nd opposite party. The Lap top purchased by the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect. The opposite parties had given proper service to the complainant and changed the display when it got damaged due to accidental fall. There is no Deficiency in service or Unfair Trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that her Lap top was suffering from manufacturing defect?
- Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Exhibit A1and A2 marked. The Lap Top is produced and marked as Mo 1 and it is returned to the complainant with direction to produce as and when required. Complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite parties 2 & 3 also filed their proof affidavit. No documents were marked from their side and evidence closed. Heard.
6. Point No. 1
Complaint averment is that the complainant purchased a Lap top with Model HP 15 –BS 180 TX, from the 2nd opposite party on 08.03.2018. But the Lap top became defective within 6 months of its purchase. The lap top could not be opened due to the Hinges complaint and when she approached the 2nd opposite party for repair they asked her to entrust it to the 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party returned the Lap Top only after one month saying that the defects are cured and they charged Rs. 2250/- as service charge even though the product is under warranty.
7. Complainant produced 2 documents which were marked as Exhibit A1and A2. Exhibit A1 is the GST invoice issued by opposite party 2 dated 08.03.2018 for an amount of Rs. 48,800/- showing the purchase of Lap top and its ancillary products. Exhibit A2 is the ‘Service Report’ issued by ‘Smart IT solutions’, the 3rd opposite party.
8. The 2nd opposite party’s contention is that on inspection they found that the Lap top was in jammed condition and it could not be opened which may be due to accidental fall. The complainant admitted that and they informed her that it could not be repaired under warranty by the authorised service centre as fall and abuse by the consumer are not covered under warranty.
9. The complainant then entrusted the Lap top with the 3rd opposite party and on opening they found that the display of the Lap top was broken and informed the complainant about this. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the display free of cost. Considering the fact that the complainant is the sister of 2nd opposite party’s staff, they informed that if the 3rd party comes in possession of any extra display, they will replace and she has to pay only service charges. She agreed to this and when the 3rd opposite party got a display which is suitable for the complainant’s lap top, they replaced it and returned to the complainant. The delay of one month in repairing was only due to the delay in getting the proper display. The complainant took it after paying the service charges.
10. Exhibit A2, service Report issued by the 3rd opposite party shows under the column ‘Action Taken’ – Hinge Issue – display panel - solved New replacing and they took Rs. 2250/-as service charge. This probabilises the case of the opposite parties to be correct.
11. Complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. According to her, the hinges complaint and display problems are due to the manufacturing defect. But the complainant had not taken out any expert opinion to prove her contention. In the absence of expert report supporting her contention, the complainant had failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the Laptop. So point No: 1 is found against the complainant.
12. Points 2 to 4
As already discussed, it is seen from Ext A2 that the problem is solved by replacing it with new display and they took a service charge of Rs. 2250/- for that. Eventhough the product is under warranty if any damage is caused by the mistake of the customer it will not come under warranty. Further 3rd opposite party is not the authorised service centre of first opposite party. Complainant herself admits it during cross examination. So the charging of the amount is not illegal. The 3rd opposite party not being the authorised service centre of 1st opposite party is not bound to repair the product free of cost.
13. So from the documents, it is seen that the opposite parties 2 and 3 provided proper service when the complainant approached them. As seen from Exhibit A3, 3rd opposite party solved the complaint in the display panel by replacing it with a new one. So we are of the opinion that there is no Deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
14. But there is an Unfair Trade Practice committed by the 2nd opposite party. Exhibit A1 GST invoice issued by the 1st opposite party states under the heading ‘Terms of condition’ – Goods once sold will not be taken a back or exchanged.”
This subscript is in violation of the G.O(P) No.60/07/ FCS of CA dated 03.11.2017 and subsequently validity of this G.O was upheld by the Hon’ble SCDRC in Kerala in Duty free shop CIAL V Manohar and Others in FA 924/2012.
So the complaint is allowed in part and the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant for the Unfair Trade Practice.
The opposite party shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof to the complainant till date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 22nd day of December 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – (Original) GST invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the
complainant Dated: 08.03.2018.
Ext.A2 – (Original) Cash receipt for the service charges issued by the 3rd
opposite party to the complainant dated 10.10.2018.
Documents marked from the side of Opposite parties - Nil
Witness examined from the side of Complainant -
PW1– Shibi.T.R (complainant)
Witness examined from the side of Opposite parties - Nil
Cost: 15,000/-(Fifteen thousand only)
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they be weeded out.
